Jindo’s Moses Miracle

Skeptics of Biblical miracles need to be more open minded about how such things could easily happen in nature, and that such miracles are miraculous because of their providential timing, and usually not because such things are impossible.

Case in point? The bi-annual appearance of a land bridge between Jindo and Modo islands in South Korea (click through both links to see the amazing pictures – those dots in the image at right are people!). Twice a year, a 2km land bridge appears at low tide, and people walk between the islands in a celebration. This same type of bridge has been identified in the Red Sea crossing. The more you do your archaological and historical research, the more you realize the stunning accuracy of the Bible.

9 Responses

The whole point of a miracle is that it is something which goes against the natural order and points to intervention by a god or other divine messenger. Seeking out natural explanations only lessens the impact to my mind.

The whole point of a miracle is that it is something which goes against the natural order and points to intervention by a god or other divine messenger.
I think 'goes against the natural order' is too strict a definition. I think that providential timing may be considered intervention.
Now, if I was a Course in Miracles geek, i would have an even broader, or different definition of 'miracle.'Seeking out natural explanations only lessens the impact to my mind.
That may be so, but when I see programs on how, for example, rivers could turn to 'blood,' my faith that such things are in the realm of possibility strengthens my faith that such things may have occurred. It doesn't lessen my faith that God intervened.

Thanks for the interesting dialogue and website. I think you will be very interested in reading/commenting on "Position yourself for your Miracle" at http://www.thedailylily …another unique perspective on miracles.

I'm actually going to agree with Louis on this one. If you accept what the Bible says as true, much of the miracles cannot be explained naturally – resurrection, etc.
Even Moses crossing the Red Sea, the Bible says it happened as he raised his stick. The water stood still on both sides and they walked through on dry land, then as the Egyptians went through it drowned them. That's not equitable to a land bridge that appears during low tide.
I do think some miracles were God's timing and using natural reasoning, but many can only be explained as supernatural acts of God. I don't mind that.

Surely the point of a miracle is that it requires supernatural intervention? If not, how can it be distinguished from a purely natural event? For that matter, why should such a naturally occuring event point to divine providence? Timing does not get around this, as seas drying up by purely natural means at an opportune time is just a happy coincidence. If they dry up at a time when they otherwise could not have, that’s a miracle.
If the natural world is your evidence for the “stunning accuracy of the Bible”, perhaps you should settle out of court as quietly as possible.

Surely the point of a miracle is that it requires supernatural intervention? If not, how can it be distinguished from a purely natural event?
As i said, by its Providential timing with respect to human events. What you call a 'happy coincidence' is miraculous to the person saved by such events. Hence, for example, George Washington's quote:

The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith.

If the natural world is your evidence for the "stunning accuracy of the Bible", perhaps you should settle out of court as quietly as possible.
If historical accuracy is the measure, the Bible makes all other historical records disappear by comparison. There is nothing in the bible that can be proven to overtly contradict the natural world, miracles excepted. If you doubt miracles, that is fine. However, since the bible's general realism and historical accuracy seem beyond suspicion, I give it the benefit of the doubt in matters of miracles.

"If you doubt miracles, that is fine. However, since the bible's general realism and historical accuracy seem beyond suspicion, I give it the benefit of the doubt in matters of miracles."
Fair enough, but unless there is some means of distinguishing miracles from natural events described in the Bible, there is no objective reason to regard it as more historical than a work of fiction. If evidence is lacking or doesn't support the biblical account, your logic allows you maintain that the event was a miracle. Can you see why that is less than convincing?